The Edge Annual Question

The composer John Cage leaned across the table and handed me a copy of Cybernetics by Norbert Wiener. The year was 1966. We were at a weekly dinner gathering of young artists at the townhouse of Fluxus pioneer Dick Higgins. Cage would cook a meal--a mushroom dish--and we would sit around discussing his latest ideas.

I had been invited to meet with Cage because of my work on The Expanded Cinema Festival at Film-maker's Cinematheque in New York, a month-long program in late 1965 of performances by artists, dancers, poets, film-makers, and “happenings” performers, the connecting thread being the incorporation of cinema into their work.

Painter Robert Rauschenberg mounted a kinetic collage, a living version of his famous art pieces of the 1960s. Sculptor Claes Oldenburg presented an oddly designed movie projector that looked like the sphinx, placed it on the stage and projected light onto the audience. Video artist Nam June Paik, standing on a step-ladder behind a large opaque screen, over a period of hours, slowly cut out an ever-widening square revealing more of himself to the audience. I was sitting next to the artist Joan Miró, who was in town for a dinner in his honor that evening at the Museum of Modern Art. Despite the curator’s pleadings, Miró refused to budge and sat through the entire performance.

It was during this period that I first became cognizant of science. The artists, unlike their literary counterparts, were avidly interested in, and reading, the scientists. I started reading books by physicists Jeans, Eddington, Einstein, and poets such as Wallace Stevens, who had deep insights into ideas in the sciences. I received an invitation to meet with Marshall McLuhan. I recall that we talked a lot about his theme that art can serve as a beacon — a distant early warning system that can tell the old culture what is beginning to happen, to interpret what scientists are doing. The value was not in explanation, or the popularizing of science; rather, it was in description, rendering visible the questions the scientists were asking.

Twenty-seven years later, in 1992, in an essay entitled "The Emerging Third Culture," I put forth the following argument:

The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are.

In the past few years, the playing field of American intellectual life has shifted, and the traditional intellectual has become increasingly marginalized. A 1950s education in Freud, Marx, and modernism is not a sufficient qualification for a thinking person in the 1990s. Indeed, the traditional American intellectuals are, in a sense, increasingly reactionary, and quite often proudly (and perversely) ignorant of many of the truly significant intellectual accomplishments of our time. Their culture, which dismisses science, is often nonempirical. It uses its own jargon and washes its own laundry. It is chiefly characterized by comment on comments, the swelling spiral of commentary eventually reaching the point where the real world gets lost.

Today, that fossil culture continues to decline, replaced by the emergent “third culture” of the essay’s title, a reference to C. P. Snow’s celebrated division of the thinking world into two cultures — that of the literary intellectual and that of the scientist. What we witnessed in 1992 was the passing of the torch from one group of thinkers, the traditional literary intellectuals, to a new group, the intellectuals of the emerging third culture. Since then, what traditionally had been called “science” has become “public culture.”

Something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new ways of thinking about thinking that call into question many of our basic assumptions. A realistic biology of the mind, advances in evolutionary biology, physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, psychology, engineering, the chemistry of materials: all are questions of critical importance with respect to what it means to be human. For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature.

"Nobody ever voted for the telephone, the automobile, for printing, for television, or for electricity," I wrote in 1969.

And science-based reality continues: nobody voted for the the computational idea, for cybernetics, for the mathematical theory of information (i.e. the digital universe), for the Internet. Governments, politicians, operating through rear-view mirrors, can only play catch up. Science is the big news. Science is the important story.

In 1997, through the nonprofit Edge Foundation, Inc., I founded Edge (www.edge.org) a website and online salon, inhabited by the leading lights of the third culture. On Edge you you have at your fingertips a general science education from what Denis Dutton, founder and editor of Arts & Letters Daily, (www.aldaily.com) has called "The greatest virtual research university in the world". Or, as recently noted by The Observer: a "global online Royal Society." (See: "Edge in the News")

Every year I ask the third culture thinkers on Edge a question. This year, I asked Arianna if she would like to share the event with the readers of Huffington Post.

The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

What you will find emerging out of the 117 essays written in response to the 2006 Edge Question — "What is your dangerous idea?" — are indications of a new natural philosophy, founded on the realization of the import of complexity, of evolution. Very complex systems — whether organisms, brains, the biosphere, or the universe itself — were not constructed by design; all have evolved. There is a new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe, and all of the things we know in it.

A few years ago, I had the wonderful opportunity to meet with Ernst Mayr, the legendary biologist known as "the Darwin of the 20th Century" who recently died at the age of 100. Attempting to explain the third culture to a man who received in Ph.D. from Berlin University in 1925 is a daunting task. But Mayr, who was still sharp as a tack, didn’t miss a beat.

“Oh, I get it,” he said. “It’s a conversation!”

Welcome to Edge. Welcome to "dangerous ideas". Welcome to the conversation!

p.p.s. Here is the annotated table of contents for the 72,500 word document:

MARTIN REES
President, The Royal Society; Professor of
Cosmology & Astrophysics, Master, Trinity
College, University of Cambridge; Author, Our
Final Century: The 50/50 Threat to Humanity's
Survival
>Science may be 'running out of control'

PAUL DAVIES
Physicist, Macquarie University, Sydney; Author, How to Build a Time Machine
>The fight against global warming is lost

APRIL GORNIK
Artist, New York City; Danese Gallery
>Great art makes itself vulnerable to interpretation
JAMSHED BHARUCHA
Professor of Psychology, Provost, Senior Vice President, Tufts University
>The more we discover about cognition and the
>brain, the more we will realize that education
>as we know it does not accomplish what we
>believe it does

JORDAN POLLACK
Computer Scientist, Brandeis University
>Science as just another Religion

JUAN ENRIQUEZ
CEO, Biotechonomy; Founding Director, Harvard
Business School's Life Sciences Project; Author,
The Untied States of America
>Technology can untie the U.S.

MICHAEL NESMITH
Artist, writer; Former cast member of "The
Monkees"; A Trustee and President of the Gihon
Foundation and a Trustee and Vice-Chair of the
American Film Institute
>Existence is Non-Time, Non-Sequential, and Non-Objective

DANIEL GILBERT
Psychologist, Harvard University
>The idea that ideas can be dangerous

ANDY CLARK
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, Edinburgh University
>The quick-thinking zombies inside us

SHERRY TURKLE
Psychologist, MIT; Author, Life on the Screen:
Identity in the Age of the Internet
>After several generations of living in the
>computer culture, simulation will become fully
>naturalized. Authenticity in the traditional
>sense loses its value, a vestige of another time.

STEWART BRAND
Founder, Whole Earth Catalog, cofounder; The
Well; cofounder, Global Business Network; Author,
How Buildings Learn
>What if public policy makers have an obligation
>to engage historians, and historians have an
>obligation to try to help?

JARED DIAMOND
Biologist; Geographer, UCLA; Author, Collapse
>The evidence that tribal peoples often damage their environments and make war

GERALD HOLTON
Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and Professor
of the History of Science, Emeritus, Harvard
University; Author, Thematic Origins of
Scientific Thought
>The medicination of the ancient yearning for immortality

STEVEN PINKER
Psychologist, Harvard University; Author, The Blank Slate
>Groups of people may differ genetically in their
>average talents and temperaments

RICHARD E. NISBETT
Professor of Psychology, Co-Director of the
Culture and Cognition Program, University of
Michigan; Author, The Geography of Thought: How
Asians and Westerners Think Differently. . . And
Why
>Telling More Than We Can Know

ROBERT R. PROVINE
Psychologist and Neuroscientist, University of Maryland; Author, Laughter
>This is all there is

JAMES O'DONNELL
Classicist; Cultural Historian; Provost,
Georgetown University; Author, Avatars of the Word
>Marx was right: the "state" will evaporate and
>cease to have useful meaning as a form of human
>organization

PHILIP ZIMBARDO
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Stanford University; Author: Shyness
>The banality of evil is matched by the banality of heroism